Locals sue FAA over aircraft noise | October 1, 2014 | Almanac | Almanac Online |

Almanac

News - October 1, 2014

Locals sue FAA over aircraft noise

by Dave Boyce

For years, residents in Portola Valley, Ladera and along Skyline Boulevard have complained to Northern California aviation authorities about noise from commercial aircraft flying to San Francisco International Airport.

Now, backed by an online petition complaining about aircraft noise and listing the support of some 900 local residents, and a letter to the Federal Aviation Administration on the same subject signed by 26 members of the House of Representatives representing communities around the country, three residents from Woodside and one from Portola Valley have taken their concerns to federal court.

Jim Lyons, Mary Jane McCarthy and Frank Rothschild of Woodside and Tina Nguyen of Portola Valley filed a petition on Sept. 26 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The petition objects to findings by the FAA of no significant noise impact in an assessment of plans to optimize the future use of airspace above the Bay Area.

The petition is the first step toward a lawsuit, said attorney and Portola Valley resident Vic Schachter, who helped with the filing procedures. If residents cannot resolve their dispute with the FAA through a mediator, the court will set a schedule to file briefs and argue before the court.

The petitioners are being represented by San Francisco attorney Thomas V. Christopher.

FAA spokesman Ian Gregor said he had no comment since the FAA has not yet reviewed the petition.

The findings of "no significant noise impact" are based on a 313-page Aircraft Noise Technical Report published Aug. 7, 2014, by Santa Clara-based environmental impact analysis consultant ATAC Corporation. The conclusions are based on calculated rather than actual measurements of noise, and claim to represent conditions on the ground under flight paths in 2011, 2014 and 2019.

The law requires the FAA to analyze impacts to historic sites from its proposed actions. Of the 768 sites in the report, three are in Portola Valley — the Wayside Village Church, Portola Valley School (now Town Center) and the Alpine Inn — and two are in Woodside — the Folger Estate stable and the Woodside Store.

New standards

An online petition at Change.org lists 1,103 names, most from Portola Valley, asking senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and representatives Anna Eshoo and Jackie Speier to ask the FAA to reduce the amount of air traffic over Portola Valley and unincorporated communities in Ladera and along Skyline Boulevard.

The petition asks for actual measurements of noise and that pilots and air-traffic authorities live up to a 2001 agreement between Ms. Eshoo and the FAA on keeping aircraft above 8,000 feet when flying over the Woodside navigation beacon and 5,000 feet over the Menlo Interchange beacon.

Go to tinyurl.com/241ABC to view the petition.

In a Sept. 12 letter to the FAA, 26 members of the House, including Ms. Eshoo and Ms. Speier, express disappointment with the FAA in addressing noise pollution. The standard in use, the letter says, is no longer reliable in measuring the "true impact" of aircraft noise, and air traffic shows no signs of diminishing.

The Environmental Protection Agency recommended a lower standard in 1974, the letter says. The FAA's traditional noise abatement efforts to avoid "severe and immediate health impacts" are important, the letter says, but so are quality of life, long-term health impacts, home values and economic impact.

Comments

6 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of another community
on Oct 2, 2014 at 12:09 am

Challenging a "captured" Federal Agency like the FAA will not be easy, but the FAA must be compelled to do a real environmental assessment. The idea that a project of immense scale like NextGen, has no environmental impact, is ludicrous. Please find a way to contact the dedicated folks working to appeal the FAA's "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI), and find a way to support them in their fight to improve the quality of life, and health, of everyone living on the Peninsula.

What is regulatory capture?: Web Link

"Planes' exhaust could be harming communities up to 10 miles from LAX"
LA Times ~ May 29, 2014 Web Link


6 people like this
Posted by Mark McEnearney
a resident of Woodside: other
on Oct 2, 2014 at 7:16 am

Thank you Jim Lyons, Mary Jane McCarthy, Frank Rothschild, Tina Nguyen and your neighbors for taking action on this important issue. Airplane noise is a serious problem and it is getting worse every year. FAA noise experts acknowledge that the way the FAA measures airplane noise does not capture the real public health and quality of life impacts of airplane noise on people who live near flight paths. It's time for the courts to recognize this too and say that the DNL standards used by the FAA are not acceptable for determining the significance of airplane noise impacts.


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 2, 2014 at 8:13 am

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

Mark:

it's time for people that buy homes in the flight paths of airports to take responsibility for their decisions. In almost all cases the airports were there long before people purchased their homes. Don't want aircraft noise? Don't buy a home in an airport flight bath or in an area where there are three international airports and multiple small airports.


8 people like this
Posted by concerned resident
a resident of another community
on Oct 2, 2014 at 8:18 am

I am writing to send heartiest congratulations to the Portola Valley community for challenging the FAA abuse.

The amount of suffering in terms of lost sleep, anxiety, emotional distress, global destruction through toxic pollution,concern for buring fossil fuels, decreased learning near schools, and health problems is immense.

It is truly astonishing that a govenment agency perpetrates these abuses as business as usual and is it great PV is standing up.




6 people like this
Posted by GH
a resident of Woodside: Woodside Hills
on Oct 2, 2014 at 9:52 am

An equally annoying regular occurrence is student pilots and their instructors using the Woodside area as their classroom--practicing low altitude turns and stalls--on many days during the week and every weekend with suitable weather.


2 people like this
Posted by Eric Ponteri
a resident of Portola Valley: Ladera
on Oct 2, 2014 at 12:21 pm

I have found all the concern over airplane noise entertaining. But now that these people are wasting our tax payer money by forcing the FAA to fight their lawsuit I don't find it entertaining. This is a NIMBY issue. People feel because they are wealthy they shouldn't have to be inconvenienced by occasional noise from aircraft. But this sort of inconvenience is part of living in an urban area. Changing the flight paths is only going to move the noise somewhere else and increase CO2 emissions, since the airplanes will probably have to take a less direct routing.


5 people like this
Posted by Vox Clamantis
a resident of Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on Oct 2, 2014 at 12:42 pm

It seems sensible to try to reduce aircraft noise by logistical and technological means whenever and wherever possible. On the other hand, the implied suggestion that traffic be rerouted elsewhere...anywhere else but here...strikes me as another example of heavy users or beneficiaries of a service demanding that the costs be borne by less entitled communities.


6 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of another community
on Oct 2, 2014 at 12:43 pm

Eric,

The real NIMBYs in this situation are the people of San Francisco. SFO is a for profit corporation owned and operated by the City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco operates this large industrial facility in their neighbor San Mateo's back-yard (BY), and dumps the undesirable waste products (noise and pollution) all over the Peninsula, while scrupulously avoiding flights over San Francisco.

Very few flights into, or out of, SFO actually fly over San Francisco, and the few that occasionally do, are typically above 10,000' AGL.


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 2, 2014 at 12:48 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

Jetman:

you are factually incorrect when you state that aircraft are "scrupulously" routed away from San Francisco. It's more of your nonsense. I spent two years working in the city and can tell you first hand that large aircraft passed over head all day long.

I suggest you go to SFO's noise abatement site and spend some time using their live flat tracker tool. You will see your statement is false as to not passing over the city and as to altitude.


6 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of another community
on Oct 2, 2014 at 1:11 pm

Menlo Voter,

You have chosen your words very carefully. If you are in the western most part of SF you can SEE aircraft flying the Point Reyes route from the north into SFO, but you can't hear them, because they are typically above 10,000'.

This pattern is very obvious in the illustration of SFO's westerly approach and departure plan, which is in effect 85% of the time (see link below).

SFO westerly approach and departure plan: Web Link


7 people like this
Posted by Concerned PV Resident
a resident of Portola Valley: other
on Oct 2, 2014 at 1:29 pm

Menlo Voter and Eric Ponteri: You may not be aware of this, but the flight paths were not over Portola Valley when most residents bought their homes. Planes from the Northwest and from Europe use to fly over the Bay. The standard arrival procedure for planes from southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and South America is to fly along the Big Sur route which is several miles south of Portola Valley. The reason why there has been a dramatic increase in air traffic over our area is because of the FAA's practice of rerouting (or 'vectoring') arriving commercial aircraft over to our communities when the airport is operating above its capacity, which occurs very often. While the standard arrival paths are the most direct routes, vector trafficking results in the aircraft flying loops and circles over us; the latter is neither fuel nor cost efficient and creates tremendous noise for our communities due to the sheer volume as well as the characteristic sharp turns and decelerations of the aircraft.


5 people like this
Posted by SeeE
a resident of Portola Valley: Ladera
on Oct 2, 2014 at 3:06 pm

Eric,

I am a neighbor of yours and think you are a dear man. I'm at the south end of Ladera bordering Westridge. The newer flight patterns fly right above us. In April this year, the Almanac had an article about the issue with an illustration of the new routes. Sadly/ironically, the merger point for the 2 routes is smack dab where we are. My friend 2 blocks away doesn't have the constant noise we have.

As a commercial pilot, do you fly these new routes? I think you mostly do NYC-Europe, so maybe you aren't able to look down when you're over Ladera and see me waving to you. if you have flown them, can you tell us how much discretion a pilot has about altitude on this approach?

For those who think this is a NIMBY or rich issue, Ladera is actually a very closely packed community, with about 2300 people. Many of the lots are about 1/10 of an acre. These routes only recently started flying directly above us and at much lower altitude. So maybe some other community was successful in saying Not In My BackYard and got them shifted over us.

It seems that if they got shifted again just about a mile north, they could come in over the unoccupied areas of Wunderlich, Jasper Ridge, SLAC, and Webb Ranch (though the horses might not like it.)

Or, of course, they could abide by their agreement with our representatives and keep the flights a couple thousand feet higher where the noise isn't as bothersome.


1 person likes this
Posted by Memories
a resident of another community
on Oct 2, 2014 at 3:57 pm

So what is supposed to be done about this? Other towns must suffer but those literally above them can't deal w/the noise?


Like this comment
Posted by tom turner
a resident of another community
on Oct 2, 2014 at 4:50 pm

Planes have frown over my house in Los Altos Hills since I can remember. I hope something can be done about this as its irritating.


7 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of another community
on Oct 2, 2014 at 4:54 pm

Memories,

1. Fly higher. Noise on the ground is cut in half for every additional 1,000' of altitude.

2. Spread the Pain. Aircraft should not fly relentlessly over the same half dozen flight paths.

3. Nighttime Curfew. A half-dozen flights should not be disrupting the sleep and damaging the health of so many people.


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 2, 2014 at 5:20 pm

concerned:

the routes may have changed, but I'd hazard the airports were all there when you bought your home. I'd have to say if you thought air traffic was going to forever remain the same you were naïve.


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 2, 2014 at 5:28 pm

Jetman:

I have reviewed the departure plates for SFO here: Web Link

I see nothing that requires aircraft to "scrupulously" avoid flying over San Francisco. What I see are standard rate turns and standard rates of climb which given where the city is in relation to the airport results in higher over flights. Sorry, no "conspiracy" here.

When approaching an airport, naturally the flight elevations are going to be lower. Unless you want to close the airports you're going to hear some noise.


1 person likes this
Posted by blowers
a resident of Portola Valley: Ladera
on Oct 2, 2014 at 6:08 pm

Whew! I had to wait for all the gardeners to go home so I could get enough peace and quiet to hear the planes!


1 person likes this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 2, 2014 at 7:16 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The lawsuit is an exercise in hubris and futility.

We all share the benefits of easy access to a great aviation system and we should all willingly SHARE the associated burdens.


3 people like this
Posted by MP Res
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 2, 2014 at 7:34 pm

Whatever, Peter- Mr. Pilot and I Fight When It Comes to Surf Air flying over My Home in Atherton, but Residents of Other Peninsula Towns and Cities Should Not Speak Up. You are famous for this double standard.


1 person likes this
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 2, 2014 at 7:49 pm

MP Res:

if you were actually paying attention Peter is on your side. He thinks it is stupid for residents of his town to try and shove their noise off on other cities.

What is truly stupid is for people living in close proximity to three international airports and multiple smaller airports to think they won't be exposed to aircraft noise. duh.


2 people like this
Posted by MP Res
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 2, 2014 at 8:15 pm

MP Voter: Who said anyone wants to shove the airplane noise onto other cities or towns? Many of the planes arriving into SFO use to loop around the Bay causing minimal disturbance. Now they go down the Peninsula and SFO volume has grown beyond it's capacity as evidenced by the high rate of flight delays compared to other U.S. and international airports.

And if Peter Carpenter could move all the Surf Air flights over to Menlo Park or East Palo Alto, he most certainly would.


1 person likes this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 2, 2014 at 8:33 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"And if Peter Carpenter could move all the Surf Air flights over to Menlo Park or East Palo Alto, he most certainly would."

Clearly you have NOT read my numerous posts arguing that simply moving the problem from Atherton to other communities is WRONG.


1 person likes this
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 2, 2014 at 8:40 pm

MP res:

if you had been paying attention you would know that Peter thinks it's wrong that Atherton residents are trying to shove the noise from Surfair onto other cities.

The high rate of flight delays at SFO are caused by weather and lack of runway separation. During VFR conditions SFO can land planes on parallel runways. When there is overcast they can't. As anyone that has lived here for awhile can tell you, overcast at SFO is not an unusual condition. That's what causes flight delays they're not that it has "grown beyond its capacity."

Every time the possibility of separating the runways so as not to delay flights in poor weather has come up the environmentalists have puppies over the possibility that the bay needs to be filled to accommodate another runway.

Please get your facts straight.


4 people like this
Posted by MP Res
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 2, 2014 at 9:42 pm

Menlo Voter: You do realize the connection between overcast skies, vector trafficking, and increased noise to MP, PA, PV and Woodside communities? If not, please allow me to help you get your facts straight. On days when there is overcast, which is very frequent as you stated, only one runway is available to land all arriving flights. This cuts down SFO's arrival capacity from 60 flights per hour to 30 flights per hour. How do air traffic controllers deal with this reduced capacity? They delay arrival by diverting the planes from their standard arrival path ('vectoring') over to Woodside, PV and Los Altos Hills where the low-flying jets circle around until they are given the okay to fly even lower over PV and MP.

And despite being a 'capacity-constrained' airport as defined by the FAA due to the runway configuration and frequent overcast, SFO continues to increase its flight volume by 2-5% per year for over a decade now. Our communities suffer from the environmental impact of this growth.

So yes, I do have all my facts straight. This is from attending SFO Roundtable meetings for 10+ years when I used to live in Foster City and sought refuge by moving to West MP only to realize the noise can be as bad especially when there is overcast and/or runways are undergoing construction.


3 people like this
Posted by Thank you
a resident of another community
on Oct 2, 2014 at 10:16 pm

Thank you, thank you,

I am sure there are many ready to support you, and actually you are doing a service to communities who can't afford to do this.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 3, 2014 at 7:55 am

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

MP Res:

yes, they do some vectoring. But more often they put them in a holding pattern at the Point Reyes VOR. Spend some time watching the arrivals and departures using the flight tracker on SFO's noise website.


2 people like this
Posted by MP Res
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 3, 2014 at 8:12 am

Menlo Voter: I have been looking at the flight tracker and the information is current. While what you stated use to be the case, especially for flights on the Pt. Reyes arrival path, vector trafficking over South Bay communities is now more commonly employed by air traffic controllers. Plus about 25-30% of SFO arrival traffic comes from south of here (i.e. the commuter flights from LAX, SNA, SAN, LGB, PHX, etc.) along the Big Sur arrival path and it would not make any sense to put them in a holding pattern over Pt. Reyes. Instead those flights are vectored over to our communities. The airspace above us has essentially become what is equivalent to a holding pattern area except that the planes fly much lower than when they are held over Point Reyes.


1 person likes this
Posted by neighbor
a resident of another community
on Oct 3, 2014 at 8:20 am

A national news network will pick up this story and make Atherton and Menlo look very foolish on this issue.

We live in a metro area with 3 airports -- get some perspective on this non-issue.


Like this comment
Posted by Becca
a resident of Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Oct 3, 2014 at 10:51 am

If the FAA decides to change the flight route, what .communities will suffer? They have to fly over somebodies houses/apartments.
I do not want them flying over my house either. I lived in San Bruno, right in the path of planes taking off. The noise was horrilbe. Shook the windows. I. Moved. At least there are trees in portola valley and woodside to help purify the air there. That is not the case here, near highway 101


1 person likes this
Posted by Louise68
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 3, 2014 at 11:05 am

neighbor --
Thank you very much for the clear perspective. It is so refreshing.

If these people who are suing Surf Air are really bothered by noise, why haven't I read about any of them complaining about leaf-blower noise? Heck -- they probably even order their "gardeners" to use those noisy, polluting machines. These people (who complain about the noise from Surf Air planes really look like hypocrites!


4 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of another community
on Oct 3, 2014 at 11:40 am

Neighbor,

Aircraft noise already is a national news story. Cities all over the country are suffering a dramatic increase in noise ever since the FAA began rolling out a new air control system called "NextGen" about two years ago.

26 congressional representative, including Anna Eshoo, Jackie Speier, Zoe Lofgren, and Mike Honda recently signed a letter to FAA chief Micheal Huerta, calling on the FAA to lower the national aircraft noise standard from 65dB to 55dB.

"Congressional Letter to FAA, Seeking to Reduce Aviation Noise Impacts"
Aviation Impact Reform ~ September 17, 2014 Web Link

NextGen hits New York: Web Link


3 people like this
Posted by Thank you
a resident of another community
on Oct 3, 2014 at 3:47 pm

Peter Carpenter,

"We all share the benefits of easy access to a great aviation system and we should all willingly SHARE the associated burdens."

Interesting Peter, is "SHARE" an acronym, or does it actually refer to sharing the noise?

Clearly some are sharing more than others.


4 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of another community
on Oct 4, 2014 at 1:47 pm

Woodside and Portola Valley are really just small communities spread out over a large area, Many PV/Woodside residents know Jim Lyons, Mary Jane McCarthy, Frank Rothschild, or Tina Nguyen... or know somebody who knows them. Please reach-out to one of these courageous people, and find a way to help them in their fight to protect the health and welfare of everyone on the Peninsula.

"Aircraft noise linked to higher rate of cardiovascular disease"
ABC News ~ October 9, 2013 Web Link


4 people like this
Posted by Patricia From Phoenix
a resident of Portola Valley: Ladera
on Nov 29, 2014 at 8:02 pm

While I don't live in your fair city I do live in an area of Phoenix experiencing the same thing thanks to Next Gen. (Also historic areas of town-vibrant areas of town) I have read through the article and the comments from those within and outside of the community. While I don't proclaim to know the particulars of your situation I do share the concern, pain and frustration these recent changes in aviation flight patters (which by the way the current ones have been in place for years or decades - here for nearly 40 years) in major areas of the country. Smaller communities should be on notice it is happening in the larger flight areas first and then it will be heading to all airports. The ignorance nay the arrogance of those who don't live within the affected areas to tell you to lump it because you live within whatever distance they feel is "close" to the airport are missing the point and the bigger picture. These new changes have planes exiting lower and staying low longer with the reported benefit of fuel savings. While these new patterns are being set now there is nothing in place to say that in within 10 years or less the low flight exit will extend another 5, 10, 20, 30 miles affecting more and more people. And don't expect to be notified. No advance notice. Furthermore for those who said you bought knowing - yes, the patterns were set at the time of purchase and decisions were made based on "those" patterns. These are changes, please understand that. If you want to debate this further then please realize even when a commercial open lot near your home is zoned for a restaurant and a chemical power plant wants open their operation on said lot they have to go through any number of hoops in order to do that and at minimum an open public notice of request for variation - you would be notified, given an opportunity to express how that wouldn't be best for your neighborhood and with enough pressure the variance would not be granged. None of this happens when the FAA wants to make changes. As the demand for "on time" arrivals, departures and mostly fuel cost savings increase so will the likelihood the FAA will continue to make changes to the current flight patterns. Then there is ability of ATC to grant early turns even though they "report" that they (FAA) are not allowed even if asked by Pilots looking to make up lost time or to cut down on the miles flown. You may think those that are standing up and saying no to this are trying to shift it to other neighborhoods you are wrong and naive. I wouldn't want this (our situation here) on anyone else no matter how near or far they are from the airport. This is about finding true "industrial" routes vs residential routes for exits and when that isn't possible at an altitude so that homes do not have to have the thunder of the jets, bellies of the planes just over their rooftops.


1 person likes this
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Nov 29, 2014 at 8:45 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

Patricia:

I happen to live under these landing aircraft. Doesn't bother me. The only people it seems to bother are those that want to pretend they live in the country somewhere far away form aircraft or airports.


3 people like this
Posted by Bill
a resident of another community
on Nov 30, 2014 at 1:26 pm

From Phoenix, Arizona. For the last 30 years, flights out of Sky Harbor have headed West 9 miles, over industrial areas, before turning North. Over $230M of federal money has been spent relocating anyone living in that flight path. Suddenly, on Sept 18th of this year, the FAA started turning planes after just 3 miles, directly over downtown, over City Hall, over the State Capital, over new high-rise apartments, and over hundreds of historic neighborhoods in the central city. So to those who say "don't buy near an airport" I say beware, it can suddenly happen to you tomorrow. The FAA is out of control.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Nov 30, 2014 at 3:29 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

The FAA is tasked with safely handling an ever growing volume of air traffic. That is why the flight patterns are changing. That increased volume of traffic is due to increased demand. At least some of that increased demand is coming from those very same neighborhoods that want to complain about it. You can't have it both ways. You can cap the flight volume and see prices go through the roof or you can find a way to safely handle the increased volume driven by increased demand. Things change.


Like this comment
Posted by La Hondan
a resident of another community
on Dec 1, 2014 at 11:54 am

I live on the west side of the Skyline Ridge and have not seen any change in flight paths (I've lived here nearly 30 years and are accustomed to being on the flight path to SFO.) But my experience is probably different than those who live to the east. But I would like to correct a couple of misconceptions I read in the various posts above.

1. SFO is in San Mateo County. While it is owned by the City and County of San Francisco, it is located in unincorporated San Mateo County and is a significant source of property tax revenue, sales tax revenue (and jobs) for San Mateo County.
2. Flights from PHX do not fly the coast route. I'm a frequent business flyer to the Phoenix region and can attest that flights from PHX and LAS come in over the East Bay and fly up the Bay to land at SFO.

Interesting topic. We do not find that being on the flight path is a problem, but the planes are at significantly higher elevation when they fly over La Honda.


Like this comment
Posted by Member
a resident of another community
on Dec 2, 2014 at 10:57 am

Which came first, the chicken or the eggs? Easy answer!
Which came first, the planes or the houses build directly under existing Airways?
Also a simple answer. [part removed.]


2 people like this
Posted by ProfGood
a resident of another community
on Dec 14, 2014 at 1:55 pm

I've lived in the Laveen South Mountain are of Phoenix 9-10 miles south west of the airport. I purchased my current home 5 years ago because it was peaceful and quiet and can keep my doors and windows open or sit in my back yard. The FAA (without warning) changed the flight path and lowered the takeoff trajectery by thousands of feet right over my neighborhood.

In response to the standard arguments by FAA apologists: I nor my neighbors purchased near an airport. We were never in the path of low flying planes. There were no notifications or warnings sent regarding the change allowing us to voice our concerns, fight or move. The increased amount of flights and the low flying levels only benefits the airlines by saving them money on fuel. Flights flying in October 2014 are almost the same as October 2013.

If low plane noise and exhaust is OK with you, I have a beautiful 4bdrm, 4bth house you can buy under value.


2 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of another community
on Dec 14, 2014 at 3:07 pm

Patricia & Profgood,

Residents Palo Alto California have formed a citizen's group (www.skypossepaloalto.org) to fight the dramatic increase in commercial aircraft noise effecting many communities on the San Francisco Peninsula. Sky Posse has a website with lots of information, and links to other community organizations throughout the country fighting the FAA's ill-conceived NextGen insanity.

The aircraft noise topic is also being actively discussed in Palo Alto Online's "Town Square", and this might be a good place to post a report on what is happening in Pheonix.

"Making a noise: Officials attempt to influence aircraft regulations"
Palo Alto Online ~ Oct 24, 2014 Web Link

Sky Posse website: Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by ChaosFactor
a resident of another community
on Apr 6, 2015 at 10:55 am

It doesn't need to be a either/or answer. If the national noise standard were lowered, then technological development would produce quieter aircraft. NASA is studying aircraft noise dynamics and much can be done. Fund the R&D, change the law and long term things probably get better. Truth is that airspace optimization did not seriously consider noise impacts and it should have.


4 people like this
Posted by Sonia
a resident of another community
on Jun 22, 2015 at 11:00 pm

Santa Cruz County residents are outraged by NextGen newly implemented flight path. We got no warnings. The aircraft noise is so loud. We are now fighting FAA to reclaim our quality of life.

For more details:
Web Link
Web Link

Sign the petition: Web Link



2 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of another community
on Jun 25, 2015 at 5:03 pm

The attorneys for the Portola Valley noise group challenging the FAA's finding of "no significant impact" in their environmental assessment completed their legal brief, and made it public several weeks ago.

The brief is really quite scathing. I am surprised the Almanac has not reported anything on this story.


1 person likes this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jun 25, 2015 at 5:46 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"The brief is really quite scathing."

Please post it so we all can read it.


1 person likes this
Posted by Diane
a resident of Woodside: Skywood/Skylonda
on Nov 21, 2015 at 6:09 pm

The last two days of jet noise have been awful. They have been piggybacking for the last two days. really feel angry we have to put up with this and the FAA seems unwilling to do anything about it.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Nov 21, 2015 at 7:02 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

Diane:

you know you live close to an international airport or two, right?


Like this comment
Posted by buh buh Bennie & da JETS
a resident of Portola Valley: Portola Valley Ranch
on Nov 22, 2015 at 7:52 am

"piggybacking" ??

SFO or the surf flights?

btw - where's the "scathing" brief?


Like this comment
Posted by Plane Speaker
a resident of another community
on Nov 25, 2015 at 1:46 am

The people who without knowing anything or anyone or any of the circumstances
who say when you buy a house you accept whatever problems come with it are
insane, and these are not arguments at all, they are just dodges.

I've lived in Palo Alto, and this area for over 40 years. If the airways are the
same, which I doubt, the altitude, noise and pollution are not. The assertion
that people must accept whatever was here before they were is ridiculous.

When I moved here there was so much pollution in the air the Dumbarton
bridge seemed to just fade away into the smog most days. You could not
see the East Bay, and you could look to the hills and sometimes on a good
day see that there were hills there, but nothing like the much cleaner air of
today.

Things should be getting better, not the same, not worse.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Nov 25, 2015 at 7:44 am

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

plane speaker:

The only way you get less aircraft traffic is by reducing the population. Given that isn't going to happen and, in fact, is going in the opposite direction, it's only going to get worse.

I've lived here as long or longer than you. When I first moved here I lived in Sunnyvale under the constant flights of P# Orions. Nobody I knew demanded the Navy stop flying them. they accepted it because they knew it was there when they bought there home. they understood there was nothing they could do about it. The people that are whining about the noise now should have tried living with P3's all day long.

Unlike pollution, which steps can be taken to improve, there are no steps to decrease air traffic. As long as the people of the Bay Area want more frequent, more convenient and cheaper flights there will be maximum air traffic. People can't have it both ways.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields